Laserfiche WebLink
Thus, the contractor might retain the application for up <br />to a week from the 25th of the month and the architect might <br />not sign for up to another week. The combination of delays <br />adds up to more than ten days before the County even sees the <br />application! <br />2. Even if RSH proved its case regarding the lack .of <br />timeliness on the part of the County (which it can't) <br />their change order submission lacks the detail needed <br />to make a decision as to whether to approve it. The <br />figure $6,561.24 stems from a letter dated September <br />22, 1986 to W.R. Frizzell from RSH Construction. <br />There is absolutely no proof as to how the interest <br />figures were derived. The contract with RSH provides <br />for payment of 10% interest for late payment (.un- <br />fortunately, it is vague as to whether such interest <br />is compounded or simple), but there is no way of de- <br />termining the number of days used in the calculation <br />or why that number was used. (See Letter) <br />In Summary - RSH has not been able to prove that the <br />County is at fault for failing to remit payment to them within <br />ten days of the period ending on the 25th of the month. Staff <br />feels that Change Order 6 - Items 6 and 9 - Interest Expense <br />should be denied. <br />OMB Director Joe Baird felt that the way the contract was <br />written made it impossible for both sides to comply. According <br />to the contract, the Contractor was to bill us for work done <br />through the 25th of the month and we were to pay them within 10 <br />calendar days. That was almost impossible, because the bills <br />first had to be sent to the Architect for sign -off and then sent <br />to us for our review. The Contractor consistently billed us <br />through the 30th of the month instead of the 25th, but expected <br />payment by the 10th. We made every attempt to pay promptly, but <br />corrections had to be made on some of these bills. In his <br />opinion, we should not pay the interest expense in Items 6 and 9. <br />Pat Carroll, President of Frizzell Architects, came forward <br />to answer any questions the Board might have, and Commissioner <br />Bird asked why they feel differently than staff on the number of <br />days' penalties. <br />Dallas Disney of Frizzell felt it is due to the <br />interpretation of the General Conditions in the contract, and <br />pointed out that their recommendations to the County are only <br />advisory. <br />MAR 10 1987 91 BooK 67 ulu, 6-1.6 <br />